Monday, June 18, 2012

Scootle Not Bound, Just Lazy....

Here's an update on the Free Scootle post I put up a week or so ago:

....the reason I never finished the "Red chips or Blue Pills" post and haven't responded to the leak until now is simple: procrastination. I've been suffering from blogger burnout recently and keep starting posts and never finishing them. On my other blog, Skeptic Denialism, I haven't published anything since December and have unfinished posts going back to last August! I was also going to write about Basile's study in my Blue Pills post and wanted to wait until it was officially going ahead before I finished it.
 Hey, it's quite understandable, although given this:

The last three years, I've emphasized the red-gray chips as a key piece of evidence in most of my YouTube videos[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] - even my song[8] - and have uploaded both videos of chip ignitions to my channel[9] [10] and devoted entire videos to debunking paint claims[11] [12]. On this blog, Adam, JM and myself have written over fifty articles defending the work of the idiot Harrit et al against debunker criticisms. We've all invested a lot of time into promoting and defending this work, and I doubt you'll find more passionate endorsers of it than us.
Contrasted with this:
But since reading Millette's report and some of Oystein's JREF posts, doubts have formed in my mind. I haven't switched sides just yet, but I am more neutral. I think Oystein makes an interesting point about the similarity in composition to LaClede primer...
I think it's time to get off your duff and let people know that you've begun to worry that your eight YouTube videos and your "over fifty articles" might be wrong.  James and I make an effort to correct the occasional posts where we make a mistake (although with thousands of posts I am sure we have failed to correct something somewhere).

95 Comments:

At 18 June, 2012 11:50, Blogger James B. said...

I am not aware of any mistakes I have made, but I am open to the possibility...

 
At 18 June, 2012 11:53, Blogger Goat Fucker's Advocate said...

Pat, Dr. Millette didn't prove anything conclusively. His results have not been replicated by the HVAC engineers at A&E 9/11 Truth.

If you had half an education you would recognize that Dr. Jones's seminal research demonstrates Newton's 3rd Law very well. I suspect that Dr. Jones's speculations about earthquake machines and over-unity devices have ensured his place among the giants of pseudo-science.

Your erroneous belief that the collapses have not been explained by the presence of burnt baboon fur at ground zero exposes your crippled epistemology.



My motto:

The Internet: the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out new underwire bras and women's underwear; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.

 
At 18 June, 2012 13:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 June, 2012 14:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

The difference between objective journalism and propaganda is that by telling the story objectively the former can avoid being wrong, while the latter engages in advocacy that might be wrong.

If Scootle's Youtubes maintain an objective tone, saying "Jones says this, Gage says it's important evidence, Curley says it's paint," that's objective journalism. Then Scootle is right even if Jones turns out to be wrong--so there's no need to make any correction.

If Scootle crosses the line from objective reporting to advocacy, opining for himself that Jones's work proves that 9/11 was an inside job, then if Jones is wrong Scootle is wrong.

Scootle's analysis of the shortcomings of debunkers' claims does not necessarily rest on Jones being right. It's logically possible for the debunkers to be wrong and Jones to be wrong. Unfortunately the concept of the false dichotomy--if it's not a Ford, it must be a Boeing--seems to be above the heads of too many commenteers here, though I'm sure Scootle understands it just fine.

 
At 18 June, 2012 15:26, Blogger Goat Fucker's Advocate said...

Pat, conflating Scootle's failed propaganda with objective journalism is the apex of information age logic. After all, I wrote it, therefore it's true. Such stellar logic allows me to divert attention from the embarrassment that arises from Scootle's advocacy of Dr. Jones's ground-breaking research, to a non-existent false dichotomy that doesn't appear anywhere in the text of your original post.

Now that I've established my superior intellect and authority by responding to Pat's post with a red herring and citing myself as an authority, it's clear that your erroneous belief that Scootle's failure should constitute a failure exposes your crippled epistemology.

Why do you gurls refuse to learn?



My motto:

The Internet: the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out new underwire bras and women's underwear; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.

 
At 18 June, 2012 20:32, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The difference between objective journalism and propaganda is that by telling the story objectively the former can avoid being wrong, while the latter engages in advocacy that might be wrong."

The difference between journalism and propaganda is journalism cites (usually) credible sources.

"If Scootle's Youtubes maintain an objective tone, saying "Jones says this, Gage says it's important evidence, Curley says it's paint," that's objective journalism. Then Scootle is right even if Jones turns out to be wrong--so there's no need to make any correction."

The problem is Scootle undermines impartiality by citing only other troofers, and not quoting those qualified to assess the information.

 
At 18 June, 2012 22:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, if journalists had to stick to citing credible sources, there would hardly be any reporting at all. No, the source need not be credible to have a story. You can say "Condi Rice swore that the 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' memo was not a warning" and it doesn't matter that she's a liar. That's what she said and it's not wrong to report that she said that.

 
At 19 June, 2012 01:34, Blogger Oystein said...

@ snug.bug:
"If Scootle's Youtubes maintain an objective tone, saying "Jones says this, Gage says it's important evidence, Curley says it's paint," that's objective journalism. Then Scootle is right even if Jones turns out to be wrong--so there's no need to make any correction."

Yes, IF. But that is not how Scootle describes his posting history on the issue at hand. He is not merely reporting on what other people say. Instead, in his own words, Scootle has...

"written over fifty articles defending the work of Harrit et al against debunker criticisms"
and
"invested a lot of time into promoting and defending this work",
and he feels that you won't...
"find more passionate endorsers of it than us"

Scootle's past blog posts about red-gray paint chips weren't regarded by him as neutral, objective journalism. He sees them as passionate defense, promotion and endorsement.

So why are you commenting AS IF Scootle has done something that he hasn't? Obfuscate much? Alternate reality? Wishful thinking? Perception problems?

 
At 19 June, 2012 08:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 June, 2012 08:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

I said "IF" because I was making a general comment about the difference between propaganda and journalism--a difference few of the commenteers are willing to acknowledge--and a general comment about false dichotomies, which few here have the patience to evaluate. I have never watched Scootle's nanothermite videos and didn't even know they exist.

I was promoting the advantages of objectivity--another concept alien to commenteers here--and making the pertinent point that the validity of Scootle's criticisms of incompetent attempts at debunking is not necessary damaged if Jones turns out to be wrong.

 
At 19 June, 2012 09:38, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, if journalists had to stick to citing credible sources, there would hardly be any reporting at all."

Derp, derp,derp! Look at me! I'm Brian Goode, I'm going to shove a live Trout up my ass and ride my unicycle to the mall to hand of fliers! Derp, derp, derp!


Just when I think you've maxed out the stupid level you just dig deeper.

" No, the source need not be credible to have a story."

Oh really? See liable laws say different. Millions of dollars have been lost by "journalists" who thought the way you do. Keep oinking.


" You can say "Condi Rice swore that the 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' memo was not a warning" and it doesn't matter that she's a liar. That's what she said and it's not wrong to report that she said that."

Yes, but you will look like an inbred, retarded asshole because when you read the entire memo it is clear there are no specific targets. In 2001 Bin Laden was one of a healthy list of terrorists foreign and domestic known to be planning strikes within the US. Just as there were the year before, the year before that, and every year since 1980.

"I have never watched Scootle's nanothermite videos and didn't even know they exist."

...Because I'm insane! Derp derp derp, well I'm Brian good signing off so I can get back in my tree house and rub one out to my dad's National Geographics.

 
At 19 June, 2012 09:51, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

...Meanwhile back at the grown-up's table...

Did anybody catch Peter Lance on Coast to Coast last night?

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/06/18

He was detailing a link I'd never heard of between the FBI, Greg Scarpa Jr, and Ramzi Yousef. Seems they were all held on the same jailhouse block next to eachother, and Scarpa became an FBI to intercept and photograph handwritten messages being passed between Yousef and Abdul Hakin Murad.

Quoting from Lance's site:

http://peterlance.com/wordpress/?p=682

"As I looked back on the Justice Department’s counter-terrorism track record, I concluded that many of the dots left unconnected by the FBI and DOJ on the road to 9/11 appeared to have been the result of an intentional obscuring of the evidence. Continuing to work sources and examine the reams of documentary evidence generated in the SDNY al Qaeda cases, I came to the conclusion that the FBI’s failure to prevent the African embassy bombings in 1998, the deadly assault on U.S.S. Cole in 2000, and the 9/11 attacks themselves, went beyond gross negligence. It seemed as if a number of FBI officials and federal prosecutors at the heart of the bin Laden hunt realized that they had been outgunned for years. So they had acted affirmatively to partition the intelligence.

I believe that their motive was to sanitize the record and thus prevent the public from understanding the full depth of the FBI/DOJ missteps in the years leading up to September 11. So “walls” were intentionally built, and key intelligence was withheld from other agencies, including the CIA and DIA. In any other government enterprise, the consequences might have been more benign. but in the realm of national security that compartmentalization of intelligence proved fatal." - Peter Lance.

New to me. Interesting find if accurate. Certainly explains part of the intel blind-spot.

 
At 19 June, 2012 10:21, Blogger ScootleRoyale said...

I consider my videos to be pretty balanced.

Consider these two...

http://skepticdenialism.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/911-truth-versus-bbc.html

In the 9/11 truth versus the BBC vid I include clips of BBC documentaries, NIST lectures and skeptic conferences and include responses from truthers. In the Niels Harrit one I include Harrit's responses to arguments in the BBC program, that the BBC filmed for that program but did include in the program. Video videos are certainly more balanced than the supposedly impartial BBC is on this issue.

 
At 19 June, 2012 10:23, Blogger ScootleRoyale said...

*My videos are certainly more balanced than the supposedly impartial BBC is on this issue.

 
At 19 June, 2012 12:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 June, 2012 12:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, wow, I bet your talk about "liable laws" really impresses the ladies!

The "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo was a briefing, and specifics were not part of its scope. Do you have any evidence that the warnings about planned attacks inside the USA, the warnings about surveillance of federal buildings in New York, and the discussion of 70 FBI full-field investigations did not refer to specifics that Condi could have, but apparently didn't, investigate?


I've been telling you for years about Peter Lance's information about the FBI's detailed information about the 1993 bombing plot, about al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings, and about Patrick Fitzgerald's leniency vis a vis al Qaeda member Ali Mohammed.

Thank you for quoting Mr. Lance about the FBI's intentional disconnect of the intelligence dots before 9/11. But your belief that it explains the blind spot is facile poorly thought-out. Consider these points:

1. Lance's "explanation" makes no sense. He's claiming that on the road to 9/11 the evidence was intentionally obscured to sanitize the record and prevent the public from recognizing, AFTER 9/11, their missteps.

2. Lance and others like Bamford are in a difficult position. They know a lot more than they're willing to say, and they need to preserve their reputations as level-headed journalists and to preserve their relationships with intel informants.

3. Recognize the significance of the statement that the "FBI officials and federal prosecutors at the heart of the bin Laden hunt realized that they had been outgunned for years." Outgunned by whom? Al Qaeda? That makes no sense. Consider that the Blind Sheikh, who was behind the al Qaeda cell that did the 1993 bombing, got 6 CIA-approved visas even though he was on a State Department terrorist watch list. Consider that the FBI knew all about the 1993 bomb plot a year before it happened, and they allowed it to go forward.

If you want to be a competent analyst, you need to learn to read between the lines. To consider not only what they say but also what they don't say, and what they say that is impossible.

 
At 19 June, 2012 13:45, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, wow, I bet your talk about "liable laws" really impresses the ladies!

Yay! Brian Good, a mentally ill unemployed janitor who was expelled from the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet is back to doing what he does best: squealing and calling us "girls".

Poor Brian. When he came up with "meatball on a fork" 6 years ago, I doubt he thought we'd still be mocking him for it today.

 
At 19 June, 2012 14:06, Blogger Oystein said...

@ snug.bug:
"I said "IF" because I was making a general comment about the difference between propaganda and journalism"
In that dichotomy, Scootle would fall on the side of propaganda, right?

"... and a general comment about false dichotomies"
Hm such as "propaganda : journalism"?

"which few here have the patience to evaluate."
Feel free to evaluate your own dichotomy :D

"I have never watched Scootle's nanothermite videos and didn't even know they exist."
Then why did you talk about his contributions? Ah I know: Truthers are so very used to talking about things they know nothing about ^^

"I was promoting the advantages of objectivity"
Great

"another concept alien to commenteers here"
Hear hear!

"and making the pertinent point that the validity of Scootle's criticisms of incompetent attempts at debunking is not necessary damaged if Jones turns out to be wrong."
No, Scootle is doing fine.
It's 80% of the Twoof Movement that's gonna be damaged if Jones turns out to be wrong, cuz these 80% (which include you) have failed to judge Jones's claims objectively for 3 years.

So thumbs up to Scootle for daring to be among the first to voice skepticism of Jones and his gang.

 
At 19 June, 2012 14:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Goystein, if you knew anything about the truth movement you'd know that a lot of people have been skeptical of the Jones gang all along.

 
At 19 June, 2012 14:24, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I've been telling you for years about Peter Lance's information about the FBI's detailed information about the 1993 bombing plot, about al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings, and about Patrick Fitzgerald's leniency vis a vis al Qaeda member Ali Mohammed."

No, you've been misquoting him, and cherry-picking him (because you're a tard). He said Yousef had THREE plots:

1.Kill the Pope on his Manila visit.
2. Bojinka, a plan to blow up US-bound jumbo jets over the ocean.

3. The attacks which went down on 9/11.

So if you had your G-Man badge you still wouldn't have caught 9/11 because you'd been chasing Bojinka - a dead end.

" Lance's "explanation" makes no sense. He's claiming that on the road to 9/11 the evidence was intentionally obscured to sanitize the record and prevent the public from recognizing, AFTER 9/11, their missteps."

Nope. See you can't get past your own ego can you. It's not what he said. Read it again.

"Lance and others like Bamford are in a difficult position. They know a lot more than they're willing to say, and they need to preserve their reputations as level-headed journalists and to preserve their relationships with intel informants."

Bullshit. If they don't say more it's because they have no documentation to back it up, and this is how they preserve their reputations.

Lance WENT to the Philippines to interview the guy who broke Yousef. Lance petitioned the FBI under FOIA to get files (files anybody else can get as well). Lance has done his homework to add missing pieces to the puzzle, unlike a perverted sex-stalking jaintor from Palo Alto.

"If you want to be a competent analyst, you need to learn to read between the lines. "

Actually you need to be able to read the lines before you try to read what's in between.

Your post drips of jealousy. Lance is a competent man who is willing to work hard to earn his opinion about 9/11. Traveling the world, reading mind-numbing documents, and talking to everyone he can who has a credible story to tell.

You hand out leaflets and harass women.

And if you want to know how I impress women the key is I respect them.

 
At 19 June, 2012 14:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 June, 2012 14:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 June, 2012 14:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, Bojinka WAS the attack that went down in 9/11. The FBI knew all about it in 2005.

Oh, so you don't try to impress women with your knowledge of "liable law". Good thing. You respect them. All of them? Unconditionally? If you've never met any unrespectable women, I pity you. I've met quite a few, and I'm richer for it.

 
At 19 June, 2012 14:48, Blogger Oystein said...

@ ScootleRoyale:

"I consider my videos to be pretty balanced.

Consider these two...

http://skepticdenialism.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/911-truth-versus-bbc.html

... My videos are certainly more balanced than the supposedly impartial BBC is on this issue."


Scootle, two things:

1. Your (the first) video starts off with you burning a book - how balanced is that? Then go on with a looong Gish gallop through many many quote mines, all hammering away in the same direction. I saw NOTHING to balance that! Very suggestive cutting, too, even deceptive at times. That ain't balanced at all.

2. In the end, the hallmark of good journalism is not being balanced, but being right. Harrit happens to be terribly WRONG (time to first lie: 11 seconds; 2nd lie (a big one): 33 seconds; 3rd lie: 39 seconds; 4th lie (another big one): 50 seconds; 5th lie: 1:10 minutes). Man, this man is wrong wrong wrong wrong in the first minute, it is GOOD journalism if you counter all that wrongness with a good, sharp dose of correctness. Yes, the chips are paint, yes, the energy density gives the ridiculousness of the Harrit conclusion away, yes of course you must not consider only one primer paint, yes different paints have different properties so its invaild if you generalize from one pruduct to all all others you didn't consider. Etc.

These chips are paint. Harrit spreads lies about it, so it's good journalism to set that right in unambiguous terms.

 
At 19 June, 2012 14:53, Blogger Oystein said...

@ snug.bug:

"if you knew anything about the truth movement you'd know that a lot of people have been skeptical of the Jones gang all along."

Have you?
Do you agree or disagree that he found red-gray chips that are active thermitic material?

I know Fetzer and his gang of fools is critical of Jones. I think you agree they are in the minority among the Truth Movement crowd?

So who else is critical of him? Who else has said that there are good reasons to doubt that conclusions reached by Harrit and Jones are valid? And how influential are these doubters, conpared, for example, with Gage and his "1700 A&E professionals"?

 
At 19 June, 2012 15:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Goystein, your belief that Harrit lies seems to be based in the unjustifiable belief that Millette's chips are the same as Harrit's. That's a very unscientific assumption.

I have no need to agree or disagree. Unlike y'all here, I have no need to venture an opinion.

I'd guess that most truthers are agnostic on Jones's claims. Maybe you have better info than I.

 
At 19 June, 2012 15:21, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, Bojinka WAS the attack that went down in 9/11. The FBI knew all about it in 2005.

And if they had a time machine, they could have traveled to 2001 and stopped the attacks.

Oh, so you don't try to impress women with your knowledge of "liable law". Good thing. You respect them. All of them? Unconditionally? If you've never met any unrespectable women, I pity you. I've met quite a few, and I'm richer for it.

Translation: I haven't gotten laid since that time I screwed that hippie chick who was messed up on LSD back my freshman year at SJSU (before I flunked out). In the 40 years since then, I've tried many things, such as lying to Carol Brouillet's husband about "affairs" she was having with Kevin Barrett and babbling incessantly about "widows" in the hopes that one of them will fall in love with me. Strangely, it doesn't work. I can't imagine why women don't go for an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents, cuts his hair with a weed-whacker, wears clothes he bought from the Salvation Army store, and spends every free moment posting nonsense on blogs.

 
At 19 June, 2012 15:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, they didn't need a time machine. All they needed was to apply what they knew in 1995 to 2001. All they needed to do was run a credit check on 2 al Qaeda agents known to be in the USA who had bought under their own names 10 airline tickets dated 9/11/01.

As to the rest of your post, you lie and lie and lie.

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:00, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, they didn't need a time machine. All they needed was to apply what they knew in 1995 to 2001.

Brian, you said they knew about it in 2005, not 1995. Learn to read your own posts.

All they needed to do was run a credit check on 2 al Qaeda agents known to be in the USA who had bought under their own names 10 airline tickets dated 9/11/01.

So it was al Qaeda who is responsible for 9/11? What happened to the Bush administration planting magic thermite and invisible, silent explosives in the towers? You've spent years babbling hysterically about your "evidence" of controlled demolition.

As to the rest of your post, you lie and lie and lie.

Poor Brian. I've humiliated him again by pointing out how he's a pervert and sex stalker, and all he can do about it is squeal hysterically.

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, anybody who knows about 9/11 knows that the FBI knew all about Project Bojinka in 1995, so they'd know that 2005 was a typo.

Your belief that evidence of al Qaeda involvement would neutralize evidence of controlled demolition is really, really dumb. Iandumb.

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:28, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, anybody who knows about 9/11 knows that the FBI knew all about Project Bojinka in 1995, so they'd know that 2005 was a typo.

Brian, you said 2005, not 1995. Anyone can read your post. If you had meant 1995, you would have said it.

Your belief that evidence of al Qaeda involvement would neutralize evidence of controlled demolition is really, really dumb. Iandumb.

Typical bushbot tactic: trying to spam over the fact that you said that the FBI knew about Bojinka in 2005, not 1995.

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

The FBI did know about Bojinka in 2005. They also knew about it in 1995.

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:43, Blogger Ian said...

The FBI did know about Bojinka in 2005. They also knew about it in 1995.

Brian, you did not say they knew about it in 1995. You said they knew about it in 2005, which is too late to prevent 9/11. You would know this if you weren't an insane liar.

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

I said they knew about it in 1995. Your claims to the contrary are lies.

 
At 19 June, 2012 17:14, Blogger Ian said...

I said they knew about it in 1995. Your claims to the contrary are lies.

Brian, you wrote 2005 above, not 1995. This bushbot tactic of denying what you said isn't going to work with people here. If you meant 1995, you wouldn't have written 2005.

 
At 19 June, 2012 17:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I said they knew about it in 1995 before I said they knew about it in 2005, and I said they knew about it in 1995 after I said they knew about it in 2005. They knew about it both before and after 2005. You seem to be really really stretching for a point.

 
At 19 June, 2012 17:23, Blogger Goat Fucker's Advocate said...

"You would know this if you weren't an insane liar."

Pardon me, sir. I'm not an insane liar. I'm an insane pervert, sex stalker and liar.

Why do you guys refuse to learn?



My motto:

The Internet: the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out new underwire bras and women's underwear; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.

 
At 19 June, 2012 18:05, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

MGF, Bojinka WAS the attack that went down in 9/11.

Connections between Bojinka and 9/11 are superficial and coincidental. It's no more valid than saying the 9/11 was just another phase of the 1993 WTC bombing.

 
At 19 June, 2012 18:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, al Qaeda's Bojinka plot envisioned flying hijacked airliners into the Pentagon, the WTC, Sears Tower, and TransAmerica Pyramid. The FBI knew all about it after the capture in 1995 of Abdul Hakim Murad.

Any questions?

 
At 19 June, 2012 18:50, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, al Qaeda's Bojinka plot envisioned flying hijacked airliners into the Pentagon, the WTC, Sears Tower, and TransAmerica Pyramid.

That constitutes a "connection" in your mind?

 
At 19 June, 2012 18:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Gosh, an al Qaeda member talked about an al Qaeda plot in 1995, and in 2001 an al Qaeda group carried out the same plot. Who could possibly be so paranoid as to imagine some kind of connection there? Twoofers really are are stupid, aren't they?

 
At 19 June, 2012 19:05, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Gosh, an al Qaeda member talked about an al Qaeda plot in 1995, and in 2001 an al Qaeda group carried out the same plot.

All plots against the World Trade Center are the same plot? You must think all Asians look alike too.

 
At 19 June, 2012 19:14, Blogger Ian said...

You must think all Asians look alike too.

Brian is a racist liar, so the fact that he thinks all Asians look alike is unsurprising.

Anyway, Brian told us that the FBI did not know about the Bojinka plot until 2005, so they could not have stopped 9/11 anyway.

 
At 19 June, 2012 19:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, you're playing dumb. Al Qaeda's 1995 plot to fly hijacked airliners into the WTC and other buildings was the same as al Qaeda's 2001 plot to fly hijacked airliners into the WTC and other buildings.

Ian, I told you the FBI knew all about the Project Bojinka plot in 1995.

 
At 19 June, 2012 19:24, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, you're playing dumb.

snug.bug, you are dumb. Even assuming identical mission parameters, how does foiling a plot in 1995 guarantee foiling the same plot in 2001?

 
At 19 June, 2012 19:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Obviously the plot was NOT foiled in 1995--it worked just fine in 2001.

 
At 19 June, 2012 19:28, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Good news MGF! You're famous.

Incidentally Snowcrash, you never answered my question from some time ago: why do you rail against all forms of intellectual property while demanding royalties for your photos? In het nederlands als dat makkelijker is, ik vertal wel voor je.

 
At 19 June, 2012 19:33, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Obviously the plot was NOT foiled in 1995--it worked just fine in 2001.

Would you also say that the battle in Tora Bora was successful in killing bin Laden in 2011?

 
At 19 June, 2012 19:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

There was no battle of Tora Bora. There were only 36 US soldiers there, fewer than the news reporters there to cover them. At one point the local mercenary "allies" held US troops at gunpoint to allow al Qaeda persons to shift positions.

At another point the Brits thought they had the Al Qaeda group cornered and they pulled back to let the US troops do the honors and the US guys let them get away.

There were 2 trails out of Tora Bora to Pakistan, and the US onl bombed one of them, leaving the other one free and clear.

 
At 19 June, 2012 19:41, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I told you the FBI knew all about the Project Bojinka plot in 1995.

Brian, you told us that the FBI knew about the Project Bojinka plot in 2005, not 1995. If you had meant 1995, you would have said 1995. Squealing about it won't change the facts.

 
At 19 June, 2012 19:43, Blogger Ian said...

There was no battle of Tora Bora. There were only 36 US soldiers there, fewer than the news reporters there to cover them. At one point the local mercenary "allies" held US troops at gunpoint to allow al Qaeda persons to shift positions.

At another point the Brits thought they had the Al Qaeda group cornered and they pulled back to let the US troops do the honors and the US guys let them get away.

There were 2 trails out of Tora Bora to Pakistan, and the US onl bombed one of them, leaving the other one free and clear.


Brian, you did not answer RGT's question. Laurie Van Auken is sobbing right now because you refuse to answer questions. Why do you revel in the widows' frustrations? What's wrong with you?

 
At 19 June, 2012 19:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, did I mention that Christian Science Monitor reporter said he overheard representatives of the mercenary warlords selling letters of safe passage to al Qaeda people in the hotel lobby in Jalalabad?

 
At 19 June, 2012 19:58, Blogger Goat Fucker's Advocate said...

"You must think all Asians look alike too."

They don't?




My motto:

The Internet: the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out new underwire bras and women's underwear; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.

 
At 19 June, 2012 20:07, Blogger Goat Fucker's Advocate said...

"You must think all Asians look alike too."

I resent that statement. After all, I vandalized Wikipedia's Chinese women's gymnastic entries, including acrobatic gymnasts, artistic gymnasts, trampolinists and rhythmic gymnasts.

See, I'm not a racist. I'm a diplomat.

Why do youse gurls refuse to learn?



My motto:

The Internet: the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out new underwire bras and women's underwear; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.

 
At 19 June, 2012 21:46, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Good news MGF! You're famous."

Cool. They seem peeved I place a tab more weight on guys who do actual research, carefully document the story, and make conclusions based only on what the evidence shows, and not what they wish it showed.

Lance (if you listen to the show) never goes off the rails too far.

Here's where Troofers fail:

They spend most of their time either running with the latest hair-brain scenario, but then they say I told you so when new information bubbles up from the FBI/CIA/NSA about the lead up to 9/11 as if this was their whole point in the first place.

Every American knew the FBI & CIA fucked up. This is no secret. The fact is everyone bares some responsibility for 9/11. The US government issued a warning in June, 2001, about the threat of terror attacks by Arab terrorists within the US. They closed off military bases to the public, and began building fences.

What was the public reaction? Nada.

Around here everyone was bitching to our Congressman because DLI closed its gates to civilain traffic thus killing a popular short-cut from Pacific Grove into Monterey. The consensus was the government was over reacting to the boogy man. There was no pressure on Congress to press the FBI. Nobody was asking about cooperation between the FBI and CIA.

Nobody gave a shit. We'd seen it before. Terror warnings caused extra screenings at airports at least three times in the late 1990s. People bitched about the lines.

So why is it a shock middle management at CIA and FBI didn't give a shit either? The CIA didn't bother going after known terrorist like the crew who hijacked TWA 847. To this day those guys live openly in Lebanon. Hell, we didn't even kill Abu Nidal. The Iraqis did that.

Terror during the Cold War was complicated. The Soviets sponsored groups, we sponsored groups, the British & French also got in on the party along with Cuba. The CIA had a standard way of dealing with them. After the Cold War some of these groups became legitimate political parties, some disbanded, and others looked to attach their flag to new causes. The cause which paid the best was Radical Islam.

The Clinton era saw the CIA re-tooled for industrial espionage. Terror, always a back-burner issue, got pushed farther back. Islamic terror was complicated because of entanglement with Saudi Arabia. Honest FBI & CIA agents watched a long list of known Islamic terrorists come into the US to raise money, and then leave without even a dirty look.

None of this is or was a secret. PBS ran specials about it. Richard Marcinko wrote the Bible on government ineptitude when it came to terrorism in "Rouge Warrior" in 1992.

If you were clueless about this stuff you weren't alone. Yet most of it was all right out in the open.

 
At 19 June, 2012 22:01, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, Bojinka WAS the attack that went down in 9/11."

Nope, not according to Lance:

"After escaping New York that evening, Yousef ultimately made his way to Manila, where he hatched three plots with his Al Qaeda cell: a plan to kill Pope John Paul II during a 1995 visit to the Philippines, the so-called Bojinka plot in which small improvised explosive devices would be placed aboard a dozen U.S. jumbo jets exiting Asia and the “planes operation” in which airliners would be used as suicide bombs in the U.S." - Peter Lance. Source: http://peterlance.com/wordpress/?p=66

Three separate plans.

Had the FBI caught him before the 1993 attacks they would have headed the whole thing off. And if the Yankees had moved Fidel Castro to their AAA club Cuba would look different.

Lance is the guy who went to interview the man who broke Yousef. Without him the information out of the Philippines would be limited.

I think he's honest, but tries too hard, but he's collecting a lot of solid information.

This really burns you up too.

 
At 19 June, 2012 23:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, it's not for the public to pressure the intel agencies to do their jobs.

There was no need for extra screenings. Two known al Qaeda agents with visa violations were phoning home to a known al Qaeda safe house, and they bought ten airline tickets under their own names dated September 11, 2001. If the FBI agent assigned to them had been allowed to run the credit check he wanted to run, this fact would have come to light before 9/11.

Your belief that the public has to pressure intel to do their jobs makes no more sense than any of the rest of your nonsense.

Your claim that terrorism was pushed to the back burner by Clinton is just more of your hogwash. Clinton told Bush that al Qaeda was going to be one of his most important projects, Clarke told Rice the same thing. But Bush and Rice did exactly nothing until September 4, 2001 when Clarke finally got a meeting.

Bojinka WAS the attack that went down in 9/11. Lance says so himself.

 
At 20 June, 2012 01:02, Blogger Oystein said...

@ snug.bug:

"I have no need to agree or disagree. Unlike y'all here, I have no need to venture an opinion.
I'd guess that most truthers are agnostic on Jones's claims. Maybe you have better info than I."

By golly, what a lame dodge!

You wrote earlier:

"if you knew anything about the truth movement you'd know that a lot of people have been skeptical of the Jones gang all along."

And I asked you to back claim that up with facts:

"So who else is critical of him? Who else has said that there are good reasons to doubt that conclusions reached by Harrit and Jones are valid? And how influential are these doubters, conpared, for example, with Gage and his "1700 A&E professionals"?"

So maybe you have no opinion (read: You are NOT critical wrt Harrit and gang), but please, share your implied knowledge and back up your claim that "a lot of people [in the truth movement] have been skeptical of the Jones gang all along"!



Re. "Oystein, your belief that Harrit lies seems to be based in the unjustifiable belief that Millette's chips are the same as Harrit's. That's a very unscientific assumption."

Millette did what Harrit e.al. did: Took samples of WTC dust, pulled a magnet through, separated red-gray chips, and analysed them. Some that looked really very much like Harrit's chips a-d got special attention.

So that is a replication of the Harrit study.

You suggest that perhaps Millette's chips aren't the same as Harrit's? Then you must admit that Harrit's chips may not all be the same - in particular that chips a-d could be different from the MEK-chip, and that both kinds of chips could be different from the chips that Farrer tested in the DSC (about which he gave us zero further information).

RIGHT, snug.bug? The chips may not all be the same?

So you admit that the chips in the DSC may not have contained elemental aluminium, and the MEK-chip may not have contained any nano-sized stuff, and chips a-d may not have ignited?

Thanks for pointing out one of the many why the Harrit paper is CRAP. Because it is Harrit, not Millette, who assumes as base premise that all red-gray chips must basically be the same stuff. :D

(You are probably quite unaware of the necessary consequenced of your scepticism, because you apply it with different standards to different sides of the issue, but ScootleRoyal has started to be aware. Let's not forget that this is the topic here)

 
At 20 June, 2012 03:30, Blogger Ian said...

Bojinka WAS the attack that went down in 9/11. Lance says so himself.

You said the FBI did not know about Bojinka until 2005, so they could not have done anything about it in 2001 anyway.

 
At 20 June, 2012 04:22, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

If the FBI agent assigned to them had been allowed to run the credit check he wanted to run, this fact would have come to light before 9/11.

A credit check won't reveal individual purchases. You're talking about reviewing credit card transactions, which requires a subpoena, which requires probable cause, which there wasn't.

 
At 20 June, 2012 10:45, Blogger SnowCrash said...

http://911truthnews.com/dick-cheney-lied-about-iraq-connection-to-911-attacks/

 
At 20 June, 2012 10:46, Blogger SnowCrash said...

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/singleton/

 
At 20 June, 2012 11:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 June, 2012 11:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

GoyStein, agnosticism and skepticism more often are manifested in silence than in criticism. If you think the truth movement in general has embraced nanothermite, then it is up to you to support your claim by naming its proponents. You are creating a false dichotomy involving only accepting Jones's paper or refuting it. My experience is that few in the truth movement have even read Dr. Jones's paper and that few of those who have read it feel qualified to comment. So most ignore it.

Actually it is you and not me that applies different standards of skepticism when you paint calls for investigations of NIST's omissions as excessively skeptical and calls for investigations of nanothermite claims as insufficiently skeptical.

Ian, we can always count on you to act like a 3-year-old.

RGT, FISA warrants were routinely granted (unless, as was the case in Moussaoui's computer, the search request was screwed up by FBI brass)--and they could be granted retroactively. Al Hazmi and al Mihdhar were known al Qaeda agents under investigation by the FBI. Bob Woodward wrote: "If the FBI had done a simple credit card check on the two 9/11 hijackers who had been identified in the United States before 9/11, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, they would have found that the two men had bought 10 tickets for early morning flights for groups of other Middle Eastern men for September 11, 2001. That was knowledge that might conceivably have stopped the attacks."

 
At 20 June, 2012 15:02, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, FISA warrants were routinely granted

They were granted where probable cause could be shown. None was shown in the case of al Hazmi and al Mihdhar. No warrant could legally be granted.

 
At 20 June, 2012 15:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 June, 2012 15:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, FISA warrants were almost never rejected. The search on Moussaoui's computer was rejected after FBI guys like Maltbie and Frasca rewrote the application, apparently to ensure that it would be rejected.

Al Hazmi and al Mihdhar were known al Qaeda agents known to have visa violations who were making phone calls back to the al Qaeda communications hub in Yemen that was monitored separately by NSA and CIA sat-phone intercepts and by planted bugs. Al Mihdhar had recently lived in that Yemeni safe house for a year.

There was probable cause. That's why there was an FBI investigation in the first place. And it doesn't matter, because this was not a criminal investigation. It was an intelligence investigation. Do you think that illegal aliens suspected of terrorism have the same constitutional rights as American citizens?

You're trying to rewrite the facts so they make sense to you. First establish the facts, then try to make sense.

 
At 20 June, 2012 15:23, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, FISA warrants were almost never rejected.

FISA warrants were held to rather high evidentiary standards long before 9/11. The question isn't how many got rejected, the question is whether trying to get one was justified in the first place. In the case of al Hazmi and al Mihdhar it is only justifiable in hindsight.

 
At 20 June, 2012 16:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

After warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA; after bombing attacks on the WTC, 2 African Embassies, and the USS Cole; there was no justification
for a FISA warrant on 2 known al Qaeda agents?

You're balmy!

 
At 20 June, 2012 17:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

The 2 of them, Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, had been named in the Mossad warning about 19 terrorists inside the USA planning something big, which warning also named alleged 9/11 pilots Mohamed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi and perhaps others.

 
At 21 June, 2012 11:55, Blogger Oystein said...

@ snug.bug
"GoyStein, agnosticism and skepticism more often are manifested in silence than in criticism. If you think the truth movement in general has embraced nanothermite, then it is up to you to support your claim by naming its proponents. You are creating a false dichotomy involving only accepting Jones's paper or refuting it. My experience is that few in the truth movement have even read Dr. Jones's paper and that few of those who have read it feel qualified to comment. So most ignore it."

The nanothermite crap is heavily featured in AE911T's "Experts speak out" crap, and makes the front page of their homepage. AE911T claims to represent 1700 professionals and almost 15,000 other supporters, and they are arguably the most noticed, active and well-funded TM org out there theses days.

Nanothermite is treated as orthodoxy at 911Blogger, and heavily defended their both by many commenters and through the use of heavy-handed censorship (watch how the Truthaction critics snowcrash, kdub and others have recently been silenced when they dared to voice criticism similar to the points Scootle has identified as worth some critical questions).

I currently participate in a German forum with a 9/11 thread - all truthers I have come across there believe in thermite.

And last, but not least, the "Debuning the Debunkers" blog, where Scootle writes - the topic of this debate here right now! - has defended nanothermite in many articles and videos.

Need I go on?

 
At 21 June, 2012 12:14, Blogger Goat Fucker's Advocate said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 June, 2012 13:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Goystein, the AE911Truth petition signed by 18,000 says nothing about nanothermite. Other 9/11 Truth petitions that have 24,000 signatures and 17,000 signatures say nothing about nanothermite. The NYCCAN petition says nothing about nanothermite.

The petition at Scientists for 9/11 Truth that mentions "particles in the WTC dust that indicate the use of explosives or pyrotechnics" has 77 signatures. Need I go on?

911Blogger is a very thinly-trafficked website--it probably doesn't have many more readers than SLC.

I do not trust you to evaluate whether the truthers at your German forum are believers in nanothermite or not. Ask them how many of them have read the paper.

 
At 21 June, 2012 14:46, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

After warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA; after bombing attacks on the WTC, 2 African Embassies, and the USS Cole; there was no justification
for a FISA warrant on 2 known al Qaeda agents?


That's correct.

 
At 21 June, 2012 16:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Well how droll. MGF thinks that the public is responsible to pressure US secret agents to do their jobs, and RGT thinks that when the system is blinking red, the FBI is out of line to ask for a credit card check on two known agents of the same terrorist outfit that bombed the WTC, bombed two US embassies, and bombed the USS Cole, and was known to have plotted to sly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings.

What a fine pair of surrender monkeys you are!

 
At 21 June, 2012 18:31, Blogger Ian said...

Well how droll. MGF thinks that the public is responsible to pressure US secret agents to do their jobs, and RGT thinks that when the system is blinking red, the FBI is out of line to ask for a credit card check on two known agents of the same terrorist outfit that bombed the WTC, bombed two US embassies, and bombed the USS Cole, and was known to have plotted to sly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings.

What a fine pair of surrender monkeys you are!


Poor Brian. He's hysterical because the rest of us don't take his incredulity to be evidence of anything. Maybe if you were an expert on something and not a failed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons, we'd listen to anything you have to say.

 
At 21 June, 2012 21:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Maybe if you knew something about 9/11, Ian, it wouldn't be necessary for you to resort to the argument of them as has no argument--the ad hominem.

 
At 22 June, 2012 04:41, Blogger Ian said...

Maybe if you knew something about 9/11, Ian, it wouldn't be necessary for you to resort to the argument of them as has no argument--the ad hominem.

My, such squealing!

It's hilarious to be told that I don't know anything about 9/11 by a paranoid liar and unemployed janitor who thinks invisible, silent explosives and magic spray-on thermite were planted in the towers by invisible elevator repairmen.

So Brian, do you think the widows questions will be answered this weekend? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

 
At 22 June, 2012 08:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Ian, do you think that jeering at the victims of 9/11 serves some purpose other than your own twisted pleasure?

 
At 22 June, 2012 15:32, Blogger Ian said...

So Ian, do you think that jeering at the victims of 9/11 serves some purpose other than your own twisted pleasure?

You're not a victim of 9/11, Brian. Jeering at you is fun, especially since you'll never stop squealing and crying when I do.

 
At 22 June, 2012 16:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

It seems that you're not smart enough to recognize that you're jeering at the widows.

 
At 22 June, 2012 16:48, Blogger Ian said...

It seems that you're not smart enough to recognize that you're jeering at the widows.

No, I'm jeering at you: a mentally ill unemployed janitor and pervert who thinks babbling about "widows" will shield him from criticism of his ridiculous and odious beliefs.

None of the widows have asked you to speak on their behalf, and they'd likely be disgusted with you as Carol Brouillet was.

 
At 22 June, 2012 18:05, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, it's not for the public to pressure the intel agencies to do their jobs."

Really? The Church Committee disagrees with you. The public tells the government how to conduct business at every level.

Want an example? When was the last time the IRS went after some kid's lemonade stand? They are legally bound to collect all taxes - it's their job. Yet they do not. Why? It would be a scummy thing to do, and the negative PR would cost far more than the few bucks they might collect.

Want another? The INS. The INS could raid every hotel, meat packing plant, and construction site in the southwest arresting and deporting illegals by the train-load. While they do conduct ICE raids they are nowhere near the scale they could be...if there was enough public outcry.

So if in 2001 people were concerned about terrorism the agencies would have changed their tunes quickly.

" Two known al Qaeda agents with visa violations were phoning home to a known al Qaeda safe house, and they bought ten airline tickets under their own names dated September 11, 2001. If the FBI agent assigned to them had been allowed to run the credit check he wanted to run, this fact would have come to light before 9/11."

Yeah, because no bad guy has ever used a fake ID.


"Clinton told Bush that al Qaeda was going to be one of his most important projects, Clarke told Rice the same thing."

The same Administration who turned down Sudan's offer to hand Bin Laden over to the US? The same guys who called off a missile strike? Called off a SOFD-D plan to capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1999?

Real important.



"Bojinka WAS the attack that went down in 9/11. Lance says so himself."

Nope. I even posted a quote which you ignored.

 
At 22 June, 2012 18:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at yourself. You can't distinguish the public telling government "how to conduct its business" from the public telling the government to do its job.

The 9/11 Commission says that there is no credible evidence for your claim that Clinton turned down an offer from the Sudan. If you disagree with the 9/11 Commission, perhaps you should be calling for new investigations.

I ignored your quote because it proved my point. Bojinka Phase II was to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings. 9/11 was Bojinka Phase II. The USA had known all about it since 1995.

The reason you're so confused about 9/11 is because you don't know much about it, and most of what you think you know you learned from liars.

 
At 22 June, 2012 18:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 June, 2012 19:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I ignored your quote because it proved my point. Bojinka Phase II was to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings. 9/11 was Bojinka Phase II. The USA had known all about it since 1995. "

Uh yeah, no. Here's the quote again, needle dick:

""After escaping New York that evening, Yousef ultimately made his way to Manila, where he hatched three plots with his Al Qaeda cell: a plan to kill Pope John Paul II during a 1995 visit to the Philippines, the so-called Bojinka plot in which small improvised explosive devices would be placed aboard a dozen U.S. jumbo jets exiting Asia and the “planes operation” in which airliners would be used as suicide bombs in the U.S." - Peter Lance.

Source: http://peterlance.com/wordpress/?p=66

This is why you'll always be at the kiddie table.

 
At 22 June, 2012 21:52, Blogger Ian said...

The reason you're so confused about 9/11 is because you don't know much about it, and most of what you think you know you learned from liars.

My, such squealing!

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because we just keep mocking him for his delusions about 9/11. I guess when you're a failed janitor who has no friends and a hideous haircut, you need 9/11 conspiracy theories to be true in order to give your life meaning. It's sad, really.

 
At 23 June, 2012 14:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, it's pathetic that quibbling about semantics is all you've got.

The fact is that the same al Qaeda people that planned to blow up airliners in the Pacific planned to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings in the USA, and both of these plots were known to US authorities in 1995.

 
At 23 June, 2012 14:38, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, it's pathetic that quibbling about semantics is all you've got."

Nope. Just laying out the facts as stated by the guy who actually went to the Philippines to interview the man who'd interrogated Yousef. They are not as you want to believe they are. I suspect it's because you can't count to three.

"The fact is that the same al Qaeda people that planned to blow up airliners in the Pacific planned to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings in the USA, and both of these plots were known to US authorities in 1995."

Yes, and the FBI also had Yousef and two Bojinka co-conspirators in custody. So guess who thought they were done.

 
At 23 June, 2012 14:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I have never claimed anythung contrary to the facts developed by Peter Lance.

All you've got is a Reboring-style semantical quibble about whether the hijacking plot was a component of Bojinka or not. Who cares? It's immaterial. The fact is that the same al Qaeda people that planned to blow up airliners in the Pacific planned to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings in the USA, and both of these plots were known to US authorities in 1995.

Your belief that the hijacking plot was "done" simply because Yousef and Murad were arrested is absurd. Al Qaeda was shown to be viable in its embassy bombings and the Cole bombing.

 
At 23 June, 2012 19:15, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"All you've got is a Reboring-style semantical quibble about whether the hijacking plot was a component of Bojinka or not. Who cares? It's immaterial. The fact is that the same al Qaeda people that planned to blow up airliners in the Pacific planned to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings in the USA, and both of these plots were known to US authorities in 1995."

I'm just not a simpleton.

You are trying to make the Bojinka Plot into the Planes Operation. They were separate. They might have been conceived at the same time in the Philippines, maybe even the same night for all anybody knows, but you couldn't arrest someone for what they MIGHT do. Yousef and his team had ALREADY carried out two attacks (WTC 1993, and Bojinka).
Bojinka's US plans involved small private planes filled with explosives.

The Planes Operation was KSM's baby. He dreamed it up, and he talked OBL into putting it into play. Had he not been allowed to escape during Yousef's arrest it's also possible the attacks would have been stopped before they advanced in the planning stage.

It can also be argued KSM's Planes Operation (9/11) headed off a much more deadly attack a few years later.

We will never know, and this is the key. Nobody can say what would have happened had the FBI connected all the dots. The US didn't do preemptive strikes, and assassination was also off the table. So AQ would have waited to strike in another way.

 
At 24 June, 2012 09:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Do you have a point? Do you have any legitimate need to distinguish between Bojinka and the 9/11 plot, or is it just an attempt to deny the fact that the US authorities knew about the airliners-into-WTC plot in 1995?

Bojinka and the Planes Operation were conceived at the same time at the same place by the same people.

Dr. Rohan Gunaratna testified to the 9/11 Commission 7/9/03: "The old Plan Bojinka, the plan that al
Qaeda had in 1994 to destroy 12 U.S. airliners over the Pacific simultaneously, that operation was the genesis of 9/11 operation. If you read the interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, who is now in U.S. custody, he has very clearly stated how 9/11 was planned, that it originated from old Plan Bojinka, that plan. . . . So the 9/11 operation is an extension of old Plan Bojinka. So the players of old plan Bojinka, they were not all arrested."

 
At 24 June, 2012 20:53, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Dr. Rohan Gunaratna testified to the 9/11 Commission 7/9/03: "The old Plan Bojinka, the plan that al
Qaeda had in 1994 to destroy 12 U.S. airliners over the Pacific simultaneously, that operation was the genesis of 9/11 operation. If you read the interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, who is now in U.S. custody, he has very clearly stated how 9/11 was planned, that it originated from old Plan Bojinka, that plan. . . . So the 9/11 operation is an extension of old Plan Bojinka. So the players of old plan Bojinka, they were not all arrested."


Dr. Rohan Gunaratna responded to me during the commission hearing? Oh wait, you don't know how to quote properly, probably because you're a high school drop out.

" US authorities knew about the airliners-into-WTC plot in 1995?"

You said 2005.

 
At 25 June, 2012 04:40, Blogger Ian said...

Well, at least we're making progress with Brian. He now is adamant in his belief that the WTC was destroyed by aircraft crashing into the towers, as piloted by al Qaeda agents.

 
At 25 June, 2012 09:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never questioned that airplanes hit the towers. I don't know who piloted them. I wasn't there.

MGF, are yuou trying to deny the fact that US authorities knew about the airliners-into-WTC plot in 1995?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home